MAJID A OOMERBHOY Vs. RASHI S OOMERBHOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Contempt Petition No. 107 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner who is the uncle of respondent No. 1, partners in the erst while firm M/s. Omerbhoy, for the dissolution of which the suit being Suit No. 4913 of 2000 is pending in this Court. In the said suit an ad interim order came to be passed on 6-12-2000 whereby Court Receiver High Court, Bombay was appointed as receiver of the partnership business and shops. Subsequently by order dated 30-7-2001 this Court (O. K. Deshmukh, J.) confirmed the order dated 6-12-2000, appointing Court Receiver as Receiver of the assets of the partnership firm of M/s Ahmed Omerbhoy. The said order of 30-7-2001 recorded a compromise/ interim arrangement between the parties to the effect that the partners of the said firm shall not carry on any business on the basis of the trade mark of the said firm. By Chamber Summons No. 555 of 2001 M/s. Oomerbhoy was joined as respondent. Respondent No. 1 is the Chairman and Managing director of the said firm while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directors. The said chamber Summons was taken out by the petitioner praying that the Court receiver be directed to take possession of the flat bearing flat No. 5, 2nd floor, trust, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai which was in the occupation of R. R. Oomerbhoy Pvt. Ltd. who was represented by their Advocates.

(2.) SOME time in July/august 2001 the petitioner discovered that the respondent M/s. R. R. Oomerbhoy had commenced manufacturing/distribution of mustard oil under the brand name 'mastman' which is deceptively similar to the suit trade mark MASTAAN. Hence the petitioner took out Notice of Motion No. 2841 of 2001 for restraining M/s. R. R. Oomerbhoy Pvt. Ltd. , from using the trade name MASTAAN. By order dated 30th November, 2001 this Court (Rebello, J.) directed initiation of proceedings in respect of the alleged infringement of trade mark and passing of the goods of the petitioner as that of the respondents. By the aforesaid order Court Receiver was directed to engage the services of an Advocate to initiate the proceedings and the Court Receiver was given liberty to seek the opinion of Advocate Mr. Kane.

(3.) THE petitioner also challenged the infringement of the trade mark postman by the respondents M/s. R. R. Oomerbhoy who had commenced the manufacturing, distribution and marketing of ground nut oil under the brand name POSTIANO which was deceptively similar to the trade mark POSTMAN.